Application for Revision

Document Number
167-20170202-APP-01-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 2 February 2017
APPLICATION FOR REVISION
OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23 MAY 2008
IN THE CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY
OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,
MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
(MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE)
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
REQUÊTE
INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour
le 2 février 2017
DEMANDE EN REVISION
DE L’ARRÊT DU 23 MAI 2008
EN L’AFFAIRE RELATIVE À LA SOUVERAINETÉ
SUR PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,
MIDDLE ROCKS ET SOUTH LEDGE
(MALAISIE/SINGAPOUR)
(MALAISIE c. SINGAPOUR)
2
2017
General List
No. 167
I. LETTER FROM THE CO-AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF MALAYSIA TO THE REGISTRAR
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
2 February 2017.
I, in my capacity as Co-Agent for Malaysia and also as the Ambassador of
Malaysia to The Hague, do hereby submit on behalf of Malaysia an application
for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty
over Pedra Blanca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/
Singapore) for the consideration of the International Court of Justice pursuant to
Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.
The Application is filed in accordance and within the time-limit set out in Article
61 of the Statute. In accordance with the respective Rules and practice of the
Court, I forward herewith two (2) signed original copies of the review application,
30 additional copies, the Appointment letter dated 31 January 2017 and electronic
USB in PDF format, for the Court’s consideration and necessary action.
(Signed) Ahmad Nazri Yusof.
4
II. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF MALAYSIA TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
31 January 2017.
On behalf of the Governement of Malaysia, I have the honour to inform you
that H.E. Ramlan Ibrahim, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Malaysia, and H.E. Ahmad Nazri Yusof, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, have been appointed
as Agent and Co-Agent respectively for Malaysia for the purpose of an application
for revision of the Judgment delivered on 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore).
(Signed) Anifah Aman.
6
III. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
table of contents
Page
I. Summary of the Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II. The Judgment of 23 May 2008 as it concerns sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
III. Admissibility of the Application for revision of the 2008 Judgment . . . 16
A. Newly discovered facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B. New fact “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor” . . . . . . . 24
C. New fact unknown to the Court and to the party claiming revision
at the time of the Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D. Ignorance of new fact not due to negligence . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
E. Time- limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
V. Appointment of a judge ad hoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
VI. Submissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8
I. Summary of the Application
1. In its Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore),
the Court awarded sovereignty over the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
to Singapore. This ruling was explained on the basis that a “shared understanding”
had gradually developed between the Parties that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh had passed from Johor, Malaysia’s antecedent and the holder of
original title to the island, to Singapore. The Court considered that the emergence
of this “shared understanding” was demonstrated by an exchange of correspondence
between the representatives of the Parties’ predecessors (Johor and the United
Kingdom) in 1953 and by the conduct of the Parties relating to the island in the
following years. The Court ruled that Johor’s sovereignty over the island passed to
Singapore at some point between 1953, when the correspondence took place, and
1980, when the dispute crystallized.
2. Malaysia has recently discovered three significant documents that indicate
that, in the critical years fo1lowing the 1953 correspondence, during a period that
witnessed Malaysian independence and the transition of Singapore from a selfgoverning
colonial territory to incorporation as part of Malaysia and then independence
as the Republic of Singapore, Singapore officials at the highest levels did
not consider that Singapore had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh from Johor. These documents were recently discovered in a batch of
archival records stored in the United Kingdom National Archives. Two of these
documents only became accessible to the public in the years since the Court gave
its Judgment in 2008; the third document’s date of release is unknown. The documents
are internal correspondence of the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958,
during the period of Singapore’s colonial self- government, concerning Singapore’s
territorial waters, an incident report filed by a British naval officer which acknowledges
that the waters around Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh are Johor’s, and an
annotated map of naval operations which indicate that Singapore’s territorial
boundary does not encompass Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
3. The newly discovered materials show that Singapore’s perception that Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not fall within Singapore’s territory persisted through
the critical period of the first half of the 1960s during which Singapore underwent
various constitutional changes, and lasted until at least February 1966, by which
time Singapore had ceased to be part of Malaysia and became an independent State
in its own right. In the light of these recent discoveries that Singapore did not consider
that it had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh following
the 1953 correspondence, it is impossible to identify the development of the
“shared understanding” on which the Court based its Judgment. While the Court’s
2008 Judgment considered post-1953 practice, the weight that the Court accorded
to the 1953 correspondence cast this correspondence as the prism through which the
subsequent developments were seen. The recently discovered 1958 documentation
goes directly to the reliability of this vantage point, calling into question not only
the controlling character that was attributed to the 1953 correspondence but also
the evaluation of the practice subsequent thereto.
4. Article 61 of the Statute of the Court provides that a party may, within
ten years of the delivery of a Judgment by the Court, apply for revision of that
Judgment upon discovery of some fact that was unknown both to the Court
and the party seeking revision at the time Judgment was given, provided that
10
The symbols showing these maritime features
INDONESIA (Pulau Bintan)
Johor River
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge
indicate only their location, and not their physical
characteristics or geographical and legal status.
North Channel
This sketch-map has been prepared for illustrative purposes.
Sketch-map No. 2. Location of
MALAYSIA (Johor)
Straits of Singapore
INDONESIA (Pulau Batam)
South Channel
South Ledge
Middle Channel
Middle Rocks
1 : 500 000
WGS 84
Mercator Projection (0°N)
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
SINGAPORE
MALAYSIA (Johor)
SKETCH MAP OF PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH, REPRODUCED
FROM THE 2008 JUDGMENT
12
the newly discovered fact would be a decisive factor in the Court’s consideration
of the case. Malaysia submits that the new documents recently identified require
revision of the 2008 Judgment.
5. By this Application, the Government of Malaysia seeks revision of that part
of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh. Malaysia requests the Court to determine that this Application
satisfies the requirements set out in Article 61 of the Statute of the Court and is
therefore admissible. Malaysia further requests the Court to make appropriate
arrangements for the substantive revision proceedings.
6. Malaysia emphasizes that it does not make this Revision Application lightly.
Revision proceedings are exceptional. It is only after careful consideration that the
Government of Malaysia has decided to submit this Application.
7. This Application is not an appeal against the 2008 Judgment. On the contrary,
it draws to the Court’s attention what has only recently become known to
Malaysia, namely, that even after the 1953 correspondence, and at a point at which
Singapore had become a self- governing colonial territory, Singapore, at the highest
levels of its Government, did not have the view that it had sovereignty over
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. Singapore subsequently carried this appreciation
into its federation as part of Malaysia in 1963 and, it necessarily follows, that that
appreciation remained controlling on Singapore’s independence in 1965. It is
Malaysia’s contention, informed by a close reading of the Judgment of 2008 and
its accompanying opinions, that the Court would have been bound to reach a different
conclusion on the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh had it been aware of this new evidence.
II. The Judgment of 23 May 2008 as It concerns Sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
8. In the 2008 Judgment, the Court found that Malaysia, through its predecessor,
the Sultanate of Johor, held original title to the islands in the straits of Singapore,
including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, from at least the seventeenth century.
Although the Sultan of Johor gave his permission to the British to construct
and operate a lighthouse, the Horsburgh Lighthouse, on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh in 1844, the Court held that Johor had not ceded sovereignty to the British by
this arrangement but instead retained its original title to the island until at least
1952 1.
9. In turning to consider whether Johor’s sovereignty had been transferred to
Singapore or its predecessors, the Court explained that
“[a]ny passing of sovereignty might be by way of agreement between the two
States in question. Such an agreement might take the form of a treaty . . . The
agreement might instead be tacit and arise from the conduct of the Parties.
International law does not, in this matter, impose any particular form. Rather
it places its emphasis on the parties’ intentions.” 2
10. The Court explained that such a tacit agreement might arise in circumstances
where a State fails to respond to concrete manifestations of the display of
territorial sovereignty over the disputed area by the other State.
1 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 29-72, paras. 37-191.
2 Ibid., p. 50, para. 120.
14
“Such manifestations of the display of sovereignty may call for a response
if they are not to be opposable to the State in question. The absence of
reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence ‘is
equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the
other party may interpret as consent’. That is to say, silence may also speak,
but only if the conduct of the other State calls for a response.” 3
11. Moreover, the Court emphasized the significance of the stability of territorial
sovereignty when determining whether sovereignty had been transferred from
one party to another on the basis of their conduct.
“Critical for the Court’s assessment of the conduct of the Parties is the central
importance in international law and relations of State sovereignty over
territory and of the stability and certainty of that sovereignty. Because of that,
any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the
Parties, as set out above, must be manifested clearly and without any doubt
by that conduct and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be
involved, in the case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of
sovereignty over part of its territory.” 4
12. In deciding whether such a transfer of title had occurred, the Court attached
central importance to correspondence which passed between the Colonial
Secretary of Singapore and the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953.
In particular, the Court considered it significant that the Acting Secretary of
Johor stated, in response to the Colonial Secretary’s request for clarification of the
status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, that the Johor Government did not claim
ownership of the island 5. The Court considered that:
“this correspondence and its interpretation are of central importance for
determining the developing understanding of the two Parties about sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” 6.
13. Although the Court acknowledged that “ownership” and “sovereignty” are
different concepts in law, it concluded that:
“Johor’s reply showed that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. In light of Johor’s reply, the
authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom
[Singapore’s predecessor in title] had sovereignty over the island.” 7
14. The Court noted, though attached limited significance to the fact, that after
this correspondence the Colonial Secretary of Singapore indicated to the Attorney-
General that the colonial authorities could claim the island, and another internal
memorandum was sent to inform the Master Attendant, Marine. But, as the Court
also stated, the Singapore authorities took no action in respect of Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh at this time.
3 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 50-51, para. 121, quoting the case concerning Delimitation of
the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130.
4 Ibid., p. 51, para. 122.
5 Ibid., p. 74, para. 196.
6 Ibid., p. 75, para. 203.
7 Ibid., p. 80, para. 223.
16
15. Having interpreted the 1953 correspondence, the Court proceeded to examine
the subsequent conduct of the Parties. This evidence concerned the investigation
of marine accidents, visits to the island, naval patrols, the display of symbols,
installation of military equipment, plans for reclamation works, petroleum prospecting
agreements, official publications, official maps and agreements to delimit
the territorial sea and continental shelf 8. Based on this evidence, the Court decided
that the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain, taken
together with the lack of response from Malaysia and its predecessors, “reflect a
convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding title to Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh”. The Court concluded that “by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore” 9.
III. Admissibility of the Application for Revision of the 2008 Judgment
16. Article 61 of the Statute of the Court provides:
“1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is
based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor,
which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and
also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was
not due to negligence.”
17. Accordingly, for an application for revision to be admissible, the following
requirements must be fulfilled 10 :
(a) the application must be based on the “discovery” of a “fact”, described in
Article 61 (2) as a “new fact”;
(b) the newly discovered fact must be “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor”;
(c) the newly discovered fact must have been “unknown” to both the Court and
the party claiming revision at the time when the judgment was given; and
(d) ignorance of the newly discovered fact must not be “due to negligence”.
18. Pursuant to Article 61 (4) and (5), an application for revision must be made
at latest “within six months of the discovery of the new fact” (Article 61 (4)) and
within ten years of the date of the Judgment (Article 61 (5)).
19. Malaysia acknowledges that all of these requirements must be satisfied for
an application for revision to be admissible 11. Malaysia considers that each of
these conditions has been satisfied in respect of the part of the Judgment of 23 May
2008 that concerns sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
20. In accordance with both Article 99 of the Rules of the Court and the
Court’s clarifications in previous applications for revision, this Application is
8 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 82-95, paras. 231-272.
9 Ibid., p. 96, para. 276.
10 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 12, para. 17, repeated in Application for
Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and
Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v.
Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, pp. 398-399, para. 19.
11 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning
the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 399, para. 20.
18
limited to the question of the admissibility of this Request, and so it addresses each
of the criteria described above. However, it will be necessary to address certain
substantive aspects of the 2008 Judgment given that this is required by some of
the admissibility requirements stipulated in Article 61.
A. Newly Discovered Facts
21. The meaning of the term “fact” in Article 61 of the Statute has not been fully
elaborated in the Court’s jurisprudence on Article 61, and there has been some
disagreement as to whether newly discovered documents are to be regarded as facts
within the meaning of Article 61. It appears from the Court’s readiness to assess
documents produced by El Salvador against the admissibility criteria of Article 61
in the Application for Revision of the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute
that the Court accepted a broad interpretation of “fact” for the purposes of the
Article.
22. Each of the documents described below can be characterized as a new fact
and satisfies the admissibility criterion of Article 61. Additionally, these newly discovered
documents may be taken as evidence of an implicit underlying fact,
namely, that Singapore did not consider that the 1953 correspondence effected a
transfer of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore.
23. During the period 4 August 2016-30 January 2017, research was undertaken
by Malaysia at the United Kingdom National Archives in London. This research
identified for the first time documents which demonstrated that Singapore officials
at the highest levels did not consider Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to fall within
Singapore’s sovereign territory in the years following the 1953 exchange of correspondence.
These documents were released to the public by the Government of the
United Kingdom only after the Court delivered its Judgment in 2008.
(i) 1958 correspondence concerning Singaporean territorial waters
24. The first newly discovered document was a confidential telegram sent in
1958 from the Governor of Singapore to the British Secretary of State for the
Colonies in response to a request for comments on a proposal to extend Singapore’s
territorial waters from 3 miles to 6 miles. (This proposal was intended to
prevent the emergence of a general international entitlement to 12 mile limits.) The
Governor of Singapore indicated that it was important to Singapore that the existing
3 mile limit be retained as access to the channels of approach to Singapore
would be inhibited if an entitlement to 6 mile limits became generally accepted
in international law. For this reason, he proposed that, in the event that
6 miles became the generally accepted limit, “special provision should be made for
an international high seas corridor 1 mile wide through the straits between
Singapore and Malayan territory on the north and Indonesian territory on the
south” 12. He described the course of this corridor of international waters passing
only 1 mile from Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (where Horsburgh Lighthouse is
situated):
“This corridor should follow the normal shipping channel from west to east
which is approximately as follows. From a point 3 miles north of the Brothers
Light to a point 3 miles south of Sultan Shoal Light to a point 2 miles
12 Annex 1.
20
south of Raffles Light to a point midway between the southernmost point
of St John’s Islands and Batu Berhanti Light to a point l mile north of
Horsburgh Light.”
25. This document, which was not released by the Government of the United
Kingdom until 2013, but Malaysia surmises, would have been known to Singapore
at the time of the proceedings before the Court, as the document originates from
Singapore, shows that, in 1958, the Governor of Singapore did not consider the
island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to be part of Singaporean territory. If he
had understood, or otherwise been advised, that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
was under Singaporean sovereignty, there would not have been a need for him to
advocate the provision of an international passage so near to the island, since Singapore
would have been able to claim rights over the territorial waters surrounding
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It is clear, therefore, that the Governor of Singapore
appreciated that the 1953 correspondence with Johor was not dispositive and
did not effect the transfer of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, as
it could reasonably be expected that he would otherwise have asserted Singapore’s
rights over the waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in order to
ensure free access to Singapore’s port, given the central importance of that facility
to the Singaporean economy.
26. It is interesting to compare this exchange with the examination that the
colonial authorities undertook five years earlier, in 1953, and which the Court
referred to in the Judgment 13. This comparison is particularly interesting in view
of the fact that in 1957, that is, after the first exchange but before the latter, Malaya
had gained independence. This newly discovered document attests that the 1953
correspondence concerning Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had no relevant
impact on Singapore’s understanding of its entitlement to maritime rights in the
area around the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It follows from the 1958
document that the Governor of Singapore, the most senior official in the Singapore
administration, had no appreciation of any territorial waters claimed by Singapore
around the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. On the contrary, the 1958
document indicates that Malaysia and Singapore had a shared understanding at
that point that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rested with
Malaysia, not with Singapore.
(ii) Memorandum concerning the Labuan Haji maritime incident in 1958
27. The second document was discovered in a British archival file for 1958. It is
a message of 25 February 1958 addressed to “GS” (presumed to be the Governor
of Singapore) from a Mr. Wickens, and relates an incident concerning a Malaysian
vessel, the Labuan Haji, being followed by an Indonesian gunboat in waters “near
Horsburgh Light” (which is situated on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh).
Mr. Wickens’ message explains that the Royal Navy could not assist because the
vessel was “still inside Johore territorial waters”.
“MKPM vessel Labuan Haji left Singapore this morning for Petani. At
12:56 p.m. message received that she was being followed by Indonesian gunboat
near Horsburgh Light and she turned back to Singapore. The RMN
[Royal Malayan Navy] patrol launch left Telok Ayer to go to the rescue. Further
frantic messages received that the Indonesian gunboat was trying
13 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 80-81, para. 125.
22
to block the Labuan Haji. Royal Navy were not in a position to act as ship still
inside Johore territorial waters.” 14
28. Press reports attached to the archival record report that a Royal Malayan
Navy launch responded to the appeal for help and attended the scene.
29. Attached to the same message is a later file note which reports an explanation
from Mr. Wickens that Royal Navy ships had been instructed that they “could
not intervene in Johore territorial waters unless specifically requested to do so by
the Federation Government (referring to the Government of the Federation of
Malaya)” 15.
30. This piece of evidence also demonstrates that the military authorities
responsible for Singapore’s defence at the time did not view the waters around
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as belonging to Singapore. Indeed, these authorities
considered these waters to belong to Johor, and had apparently issued instructions
to their ships to refrain from entering those waters without specific invitation.
Once again, Malaysia assumes that the document, and the evidence that it affords
of an appreciation of sovereignty, will have been known to Singapore at the time
as it was addressed to the Governor of Singapore. Once again, if there is any shared
understanding of sovereignty that emerges from this document it is that sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rested with Malaysia, in the name of
Johor.
31. That the British naval authorities viewed the waters adjacent to Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as belonging to Johor is especially noteworthy in view of
the fact, mentioned by the Court in the 2008 Judgment, that the Colonial Secretary
of Singapore had informed the Master Attendant, Marine in 1953 of his view that
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to lie in Johor waters indicates that no such a
claim to the island was ever made.
(iii) Annotated map of naval operations
32. The third document was discovered in a file prepared by the British Commander
of the Far East Fleet under the title “Naval Operations in the Malacca and
Singapore Straits 1964-1966”. This file contains a confidential publication distributed
by the Commander titled “Orders for Ships Patrolling in Defence of Western
Malaysian Seaboard”.
33. This confidential compilation of orders includes an order for “Restricted
and Prohibited Areas — Singapore Territorial Waters”, which indicates the areas
in which night curfew arrangements were to be enforced, and designates three
areas where night fishing was permitted. A map illustrating the various designated
curfew and fishing areas is attached to the order. Dated 25 March 1962, the map
also includes a clear line delimiting the Singaporean territorial waters. It shows the
limits of Singaporean territorial waters at a point south of Pulau Tekon Besar in
the Johor Strait; they do not extend to the vicinity of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.
34. Although the map is originally dated 25 March 1962, there are handwritten
annotations on the sheet dated February 1966. One annotation explains that “the
14 Annex 2, p. 43.
15 Ibid., p. 44.
24
night curfew arrangements are reviewed each month by Singapore authorities and
re- imposed as necessary”. It goes on to remark that there are no changes from the
arrangements described on the map as of February 1966.
35. The discovery of this map with its particular handwritten annotations provides
a valuable new basis for assessing the Singaporean authorities’ understanding
of their territorial entitlements, since the notes describe the operation and outcome
of a regular process in which the Singapore authorities reviewed and
reaffirmed the strict regulation of their maritime spaces every month. Despite the
regularity and frequency of this review, the authorities never extended its coverage
to include Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
36. It is not known precisely when this map was released to the public, and the
UK National Archives was unable to supply a specific date when enquiries were
made.
B. New Fact “of such a Nature as to Be a Decisive Factor”
37. For an application for revision to be admissible, the newly discovered fact
must be “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor”. The test of decisiveness has
proved to be significant in some of the Court’s previous judgments concerning
applications for revision, and the Court has clarified that a newly discovered fact
will be a decisive factor if the Court might have changed its decision in some way
as a result. In the Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), the Court stated:
“[W]hat is required for the admissibility of an application for revision is not
that the new fact relied on might, had it been known, have made it possible for
the Court to be more specific in its decision; it must have been a ‘fact of such
a nature as to be a decisive factor’. So far from constituting such a fact, the
details [of the alleged new fact] . . . would not have changed the decision of the
Court.” 16
38. A similar interpretation appears to have been applied in the Application for
Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land,
Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua
intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras) when the Chamber determined that one
of the alleged new facts “does not overturn the conclusions arrived at by the
Chamber” 17.
39. In order to determine whether a newly discovered fact is capable of being
characterized as a decisive factor, it is necessary to recall the considerations of legal
principle on which the Court relied when ruling on the sovereignty of Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. According to the Court, sovereignty might pass if the
conduct of the parties reveals the emergence of an informal or tacit agreement
between the two States in question, including situations where an existing sovereign’s
failure to respond to acts à titre de souverain by the other State indicates that
16 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the
Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya), I.C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 213-214, para. 39.
17 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning
the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras), I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 410, para. 53.
26
sovereign’s consent, in acquiescent form, to the transfer if title 18. In the Judgment,
the Court ruled that sovereignty over the island passed because the conduct of the
Parties “reflect[ed] a convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding
title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” 19. In ascertaining the emergence of this
convergence of the Parties’ positions, the Court attached “major significance” to
the statement of the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor during the 1953 correspondence
that Johor did not claim ownership of the island 20. The Court also paid
close attention to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain
taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors, including their
failure to respond 21.
40. The newly discovered documents individually and together demonstrate
that Singapore, at the very highest levels, knew that that 1953 correspondence did
not effect a transfer of sovereignty, and that in the years after that exchange Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore’s sovereign territory.
This fact is of great importance as it cuts deeply against the central thesis of the
Court’s Judgment that a “shared understanding” began to develop gradually after
the exchange of correspondence in 1953. This theory — that that the positions of
the two parties gradually converged on a shared understanding that Johor’s sovereignty
passed over to Singapore — provided the lens through which the Court
evaluated the Parties’ conduct in the period between 1953 and 1980. As such, the
recent discovery that Singapore knew that it had not acquired title to Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh as a result of the 1953 correspondence is a decisive factor in
this case.
41. Not only does this newly discovered fact upset the timeline and disturb the
trajectory of the “convergence” of the two Parties’ positions on the matter, it also
fractures the lens through which the Court viewed all of the subsequent conduct of
the Parties. With such deep- reaching effects on the Court’s understanding of the
issues that informed its Judgment in 2008, this newly discovered fact would, in
Malaysia’s contention, if considered anew, inevitably lead to a different conclusion
on the question of whether Johor’s title to the island had passed to Singapore. This
is all the more the case as the Court’s appreciation that sovereignty passed in consequence
of the emergence of an informal agreement between the Parties was not
the subject of submission by the Parties or enquiry by the Court in the original
proceedings.
42. It is also worth noting the additional significance of the handwritten annotations
on the map of restricted areas, since that evidence shows that Singapore’s
appreciation that it had not acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh continued through to 1966. This is significant in two respects. First, the
annotations inform us that the map of restricted areas was reviewed and reaffirmed
every month, and the consistent reaffirmation of a map which excludes Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from Singapore’s territorial waters shows that there was
no evolution or gradual development in the Singaporean officials’ understanding
of their sovereign space; rather, their position was static and unchanging until
18 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 50-51, paras. 120-122, and
pp. 95-96, paras. 273-276.
19 Ibid., p. 96, para. 276.
20 Ibid., para. 275.
21 Ibid., para. 276.
28
1966. Second, the date of the annotation is significant in the light of the constitutional
changes which Singapore underwent in the 1960s. Singapore joined the State
of Malaysia in 1963 — one year after the map of restricted areas was first drawn —
and it ceased to be a member of Malaysia in 1965 — one year before the annotations
were added to the map. This means that Singapore did not consider Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to fall under Singaporean sovereignty either at the time
when it became a part of Malaysia, or at the time when it left that entity and
became a State in its own right.
C. New Fact Unknown to the Court and to the Party Claiming
Revision at the Time of the Judgment
43. As the Court made clear in its Judgment in the Application for Revision of
the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina
v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina),
the newly discovered fact must have existed at the time the Judgment was
given but have been unknown to both the Court and the party seeking revision.
44. The fact that the British colonial and the Singaporean authorities at the
highest level had acted in conformity with their understanding that Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh did not fall under Singapore’s sovereignty after 1953 was
unknown both to the Court and to Malaysia at the time the Judgment was delivered
in 2008.
45. This fact was not pleaded by either Party during the original proceedings
and was only discovered on review of the archival files of the British colonial
administration after they were made available to the public by the UK National
Archives after Judgment was rendered in 2008.
D. Ignorance of New Fact not due to Negligence
46. Whether the late discovery of new facts is attributable to negligence on the
part of the State requesting revision is a question that the Court has considered in
two of the revision applications that it has heard to date. When determining
whether a party has been negligent in failing to produce evidence of the newly
alleged facts during the original proceedings the Court appears to employ an
objective test based on the reasonableness of the conduct of the applicant State. In
the Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982
in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
(Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), the Court held that there was no reason why
Tunisia could not seek out by itself the information concerning the fact that was
newly alleged in the revision application by employing lawful and proper means.
In determining whether Tunisia had been negligent in failing to obtain certain
information (concerning concessions granted by Libya), the Court asked “whether
the circumstances were such that means were available to Tunisia to ascertain the
details of the concessions from other sources; and indeed whether it was in Tunisia’s
own interests to do so” 22.
22 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982
in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 205, para. 23.
30
47. The newly discovered documents which have established the “fact”
advanced in the present Application were not available to Malaysia before the
Judgment was given. They are confidential official documents which were inaccessible
to the public until their release by the UK National Archives.
48. It is also worth noting that the negligence standard in this case should take
into account the fact that the issue of the Parties’ own understanding of the situation
concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was not pleaded
during the original proceedings, and it would be difficult to expect litigants to be
characterized as negligent for not discovering information relevant to a point
which was not anticipated in the proceedings.
49. Since the documents described above were housed in the UK National
Archives and were only released to the public after the Judgment, their discovery
after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Court is not attributable to any
negligence on the part of the Government of Malaysia, and so presents no obstacle
to the admissibility of this application for revision.
E. Time- Limits
50. Article 61 imposes two conditions as to the timing of an application for revision:
the application must be made within six months of the discovery of the new
fact and no later than ten years after the Judgment is delivered.
51. Malaysia’s application complies with both of these requirements. The application
complies with Article 61 (4), as it is being made within six months of the
discovery of the new fact, since all of the documents that establish this fact and
which are referred to in this application were obtained on or after 4 August 2016.
52. This application also complies with the time-limit specified in Article 61(5),
as it is being submitted before the lapse of ten years from the Judgment date of
23 May 2008.
IV. Conclusion
53. Newly available documents establish the fact that officials at the highest
levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore’s sovereign territory
in the years following the correspondence between the British colonial authorities
and Johor in 1953. This was not a fact known to Malaysia or to the Court at
the time of the 2008 Judgment.
54. This new fact suggests that the 1953 correspondence between the United
Kingdom and Johor neither created nor advanced the formation of a shared
understanding between the Parties concerning the passing of sovereignty over
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from Johor to Singapore. They show that there
was no tacit agreement between the Parties regarding the transfer of sovereignty
over the island, especially when, as the Court declared,
“any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the
Parties . . . must be manifested clearly and without any doubt by that conduct
and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be involved, in the
case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of sovereignty over
part of its territory.” 23
23 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 51, para. 122.
32
V. Appointment of a Judge AD HOC
55. In accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court, Malaysia appoints
Professor John Dugard as Judge ad hoc for purposes of these proceedings, Professor
Dugard having acted as Judge ad hoc appointed by Malaysia in the original
proceedings leading to the 2008 Judgment.
VI. Submissions
56. For the reasons described above, Malaysia respectfully requests the Court
to adjudge and declare:
— that there exists a new fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor within the
meaning of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court;
— that this Application for revision of the Judgment is admissible; and
— that the Court should, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of the Court,
fix a time to proceed with consideration of the application for revision.
I have the honour to submit to the Court the Application for Revision of the
Judgment of 23 May 2008, in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) as well as
the annexes attached hereto.
The Application is filed in accordance and within the time-limit set out in Article
61 of the Statute. In accordance with the respective Rules and Practice of the
Court,1 submit a duly signed copy of the Application.
I am pleased to certify that the copies of the annexed documents are true copies
of the originals.
2 February 2017.
(Signed) Dato’ Ahmad Nazri Yusof,
Ambassador of Malaysia
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Co-Agent of Malaysia.
34
24
LIST OF ANNEXES*
Annex 1. Colony of Singapore Confidential Telegram No. 52 from the Governor
of Singapore to the Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 7 February
1958 regarding Territorial Waters.
Annex 2. Memorandum reporting Labuan Haji incident, 25 February 1958 and
accompanying file note.
Annex 3. Map of Restricted and Prohibited Areas — Singapore Territorial
Waters, dated 25 March 1962.
* Annexes not reproduced in print version, but available in electronic version on the
Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org, under “cases”).
IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE – PRINTED IN FRANCE

Bilingual Content

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 2 February 2017
APPLICATION FOR REVISION
OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23 MAY 2008
IN THE CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY
OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,
MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
(MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE)
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
REQUÊTE
INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour
le 2 février 2017
DEMANDE EN REVISION
DE L’ARRÊT DU 23 MAI 2008
EN L’AFFAIRE RELATIVE À LA SOUVERAINETÉ
SUR PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,
MIDDLE ROCKS ET SOUTH LEDGE
(MALAISIE/SINGAPOUR)
(MALAISIE c. SINGAPOUR)
2
2017
General List
No. 167
I. LETTER FROM THE CO-AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF MALAYSIA TO THE REGISTRAR
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
2 February 2017.
I, in my capacity as Co-Agent for Malaysia and also as the Ambassador of
Malaysia to The Hague, do hereby submit on behalf of Malaysia an application
for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty
over Pedra Blanca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/
Singapore) for the consideration of the International Court of Justice pursuant to
Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.
The Application is filed in accordance and within the time-limit set out in Article
61 of the Statute. In accordance with the respective Rules and practice of the
Court, I forward herewith two (2) signed original copies of the review application,
30 additional copies, the Appointment letter dated 31 January 2017 and electronic
USB in PDF format, for the Court’s consideration and necessary action.
(Signed) Ahmad Nazri Yusof.
3
2017
Rôle général
no 167
I. LETTRE DU COAGENT DU GOUVERNEMENT
DE LA MALAISIE AU GREFFIER
DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
[Traduction]
Le 2 février 2017.
En ma qualité de coagent de la Malaisie et d’ambassadeur de cet Etat à La Haye,
j’ai l’honneur, conformément à l’article 61 du Statut de la Cour internationale
de Justice, de soumettre, par la présente, au nom de la Malaisie, une demande
en revision de l’arrêt rendu le 23 mai 2008 en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour).
La demande en revision est déposée dans le délai fixé à l’article 61 du Statut.
Conformément au Règlement et à la pratique de la Cour, j’ai l’honneur de transmettre
par la présente, pour que la Cour puisse les examiner et y donner les suites
nécessaires, deux originaux signés de la demande en revision, trente exemplaires
supplémentaires et une version en format PDF sur clef USB de celle‑ci, ainsi que la
lettre de nomination en date du 31 janvier 2017.
(Signé) Ahmad Nazri Yusof.
4
II. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF MALAYSIA TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
31 January 2017.
On behalf of the Governement of Malaysia, I have the honour to inform you
that H.E. Ramlan Ibrahim, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Malaysia, and H.E. Ahmad Nazri Yusof, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, have been appointed
as Agent and Co-Agent respectively for Malaysia for the purpose of an application
for revision of the Judgment delivered on 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore).
(Signed) Anifah Aman.
5
II. LETTRE DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
DE LA MALAISIE AU GREFFIER
DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
[Traduction]
Le 31 janvier 2017.
Au nom du Gouvernement de la Malaisie, j’ai l’honneur de vous informer que
S. Exc. M. Ramlan Ibrahim, secrétaire général du ministère des affaires étrangères
de la Malaisie, et S. Exc. M. Ahmad Nazri Yusof, ambassadeur extraordinaire et
plénipotentiaire de la Malaisie auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas, ont été désignés
pour occuper respectivement les fonctions d’agent et de coagent de la Malaisie aux
fins de la demande en revision de l’arrêt rendu le 23 mai 2008 en l’affaire relative à
la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour).
(Signé) Anifah Aman.
6
III. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
table of contents
Page
I. Summary of the Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II. The Judgment of 23 May 2008 as it concerns sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
III. Admissibility of the Application for revision of the 2008 Judgment . . 16
A. Newly discovered facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B. New fact “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor” . . . . . . 24
C. New fact unknown to the Court and to the party claiming revision
at the time of the Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D. Ignorance of new fact not due to negligence . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
E. Time-limits
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
V. Appointment of a judge ad hoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
VI. Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7
III. REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
[Traduction]
table des matières
Page
I. Résumé de la demande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
II. L’arrêt du 23 mai 2008 en ce qu’il a trait à la souveraineté sur Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
III. Recevabilité de la demande en revision de l’arrêt de 2008 . . . . . . . . 17
A. Faits nouvellement découverts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Fait nouveau « de nature à exercer une influence décisive » . . . . 25
C. Fait nouveau inconnu, au moment du prononcé de l’arrêt,
de la Cour et de la partie qui en demande la revision . . . . . . . 29
D. Ignorance du fait nouveau non due à une faute . . . . . . . . . . 29
E. Délais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
IV. Observation finale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
V. Désignation d’un juge ad hoc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
VI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Liste des annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8
I. Summary of the Application
1. In its Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore),
the Court awarded sovereignty over the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
to Singapore. This ruling was explained on the basis that a “shared understanding”
had gradually developed between the Parties that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh had passed from Johor, Malaysia’s antecedent and the holder of
original title to the island, to Singapore. The Court considered that the emergence
of this “shared understanding” was demonstrated by an exchange of correspondence
between the representatives of the Parties’ predecessors (Johor and the United
Kingdom) in 1953 and by the conduct of the Parties relating to the island in the
following years. The Court ruled that Johor’s sovereignty over the island passed to
Singapore at some point between 1953, when the correspondence took place, and
1980, when the dispute crystallized.
2. Malaysia has recently discovered three significant documents that indicate
that, in the critical years fo1lowing the 1953 correspondence, during a period that
witnessed Malaysian independence and the transition of Singapore from a self-governing
colonial territory to incorporation as part of Malaysia and then independence
as the Republic of Singapore, Singapore officials at the highest levels did
not consider that Singapore had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh from Johor. These documents were recently discovered in a batch of
archival records stored in the United Kingdom National Archives. Two of these
documents only became accessible to the public in the years since the Court gave
its Judgment in 2008; the third document’s date of release is unknown. The documents
are internal correspondence of the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958,
during the period of Singapore’s colonial self-government,
concerning Singapore’s
territorial waters, an incident report filed by a British naval officer which acknowledges
that the waters around Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh are Johor’s, and an
annotated map of naval operations which indicate that Singapore’s territorial
boundary does not encompass Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
3. The newly discovered materials show that Singapore’s perception that Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not fall within Singapore’s territory persisted through
the critical period of the first half of the 1960s during which Singapore underwent
various constitutional changes, and lasted until at least February 1966, by which
time Singapore had ceased to be part of Malaysia and became an independent State
in its own right. In the light of these recent discoveries that Singapore did not consider
that it had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh following
the 1953 correspondence, it is impossible to identify the development of the
“shared understanding” on which the Court based its Judgment. While the Court’s
2008 Judgment considered post-1953 practice, the weight that the Court accorded
to the 1953 correspondence cast this correspondence as the prism through which the
subsequent developments were seen. The recently discovered 1958 documentation
goes directly to the reliability of this vantage point, calling into question not only
the controlling character that was attributed to the 1953 correspondence but also
the evaluation of the practice subsequent thereto.
4. Article 61 of the Statute of the Court provides that a party may, within
ten years of the delivery of a Judgment by the Court, apply for revision of that
Judgment upon discovery of some fact that was unknown both to the Court
and the party seeking revision at the time Judgment was given, provided that
9
I. Résumé de la demande
1. Dans l’arrêt qu’elle a rendu le 23 mai 2008 en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/
Singapour), la Cour a jugé que la souveraineté sur l’île de Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh appartenait à Singapour. Cette conclusion reposait sur la prémisse suivante
: les Parties seraient progressivement parvenues à une communauté de vues
(les « vues partagées »), selon laquelle la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh avait été transférée du Johor, le prédécesseur de la Malaisie et détenteur
du titre originaire sur l’île, à Singapour. La Cour a considéré que l’apparition
de cette communauté de vues était attestée par un échange de correspondance de
1953 entre les représentants des Etats prédécesseurs des Parties (le Johor et le
Royaume‑Uni) et par le comportement de celles‑ci à l’égard de ladite île au cours
des années qui suivirent. Elle a conclu que la souveraineté du Johor sur l’île avait
été transférée à Singapour à un moment donné au cours de la période comprise
entre 1953, année de l’échange de correspondance, et 1980, lorsque le différend
s’est cristallisé.
2. La Malaisie a récemment mis au jour trois documents essentiels qui montrent
que, pendant les années cruciales qui ont suivi la correspondance de 1953 —
période marquée par l’accession à l’indépendance de la Malaisie et qui a vu le territoire
colonial autonome de Singapour être intégré à la Malaisie, puis devenir un
Etat indépendant, la République de Singapour —, les plus hautes autorités singapouriennes
ne considéraient pas que Johor avait transmis à cet Etat la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. Ces documents ont été découverts dans un lot
de documents d’archives conservés aux archives nationales du Royaume‑Uni.
Deux d’entre eux n’ont été rendus publics qu’après le prononcé de l’arrêt de la
Cour en 2008 ; la date à laquelle le troisième l’a été n’est pas connue. Il s’agit d’une
correspondance interne des autorités coloniales de Singapour, datant de 1958, soit
de la période de gouvernement autonome de la colonie, et concernant les eaux
territoriales singapouriennes ; d’un rapport d’incident soumis par un officier de la
marine britannique qui reconnaissait que les eaux entourant Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh appartenaient au Johor ; et d’une carte annotée des zones ouvertes ou
interdites à la navigation maritime, et dont il ressort que le territoire de Singapour
n’englobait pas Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
3. Ces documents récemment découverts montrent que, pendant la période critique
de la première moitié des années 1960, au cours de laquelle elle a connu divers
changements constitutionnels, et ce, jusqu’au mois de février 1966 au moins, date
à laquelle elle avait cessé de faire partie de la Malaisie pour devenir un Etat indépendant
à part entière, Singapour a continué de considérer que Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh ne relevait pas de sa souveraineté. Ces éléments nouveaux montrant
que Singapour n’estimait pas avoir acquis la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh à la suite de la correspondance de 1953 ne permettent plus de
considérer que se soit constituée la communauté de vues sur laquelle la Cour a
fondé son arrêt. Si elle a, dans son arrêt de 2008, examiné la pratique postérieure à
1953, la Cour l’a fait au travers du prisme de la correspondance de cette année‑là,
à laquelle elle a accordé un poids décisif. Or les documents de 1958 récemment mis
au jour contredisent directement cette approche, remettant en question non seulement
l’importance déterminante conférée à la correspondance de 1953, mais également
l’appréciation de la pratique postérieure à cette date.
4. L’article 61 du Statut de la Cour prévoit qu’une partie peut, dans un délai de
dix ans à dater du prononcé de l’arrêt, présenter une demande en revision en raison
de la découverte d’un fait qui était inconnu de la Cour et d’elle‑même au moment
dudit prononcé, à condition que ce fait soit de nature à avoir pu exercer une
10
The symbols showing these maritime features
INDONESIA (Pulau Bintan)
Johor River
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge
indicate only their location, and not their physical
characteristics or geographical and legal status.
North Channel
This sketch-map has been prepared for illustrative purposes.
Sketch-map No. 2. Location of
MALAYSIA (Johor)
Straits of Singapore
INDONESIA (Pulau Batam)
South Channel
South Ledge
Middle Channel
Middle Rocks
1 : 500 000
WGS 84
Mercator Projection (0°N)
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
SINGAPORE
MALAYSIA (Johor)
SKETCH MAP OF PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH, REPRODUCED
FROM THE 2008 JUDGMENT
11
Les symboles représentant ces formations maritimes indiquent
Croquis No. 2.
Situation géographique
de Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
physiques ou leur statut géographique et juridique.
INDONÉSIE (Pulau Bintan)
Fleuve Johor
MALAISIE (Johor) Middle Rocks et South Ledge
WGS 84
MALAISIE (Johor)
Middle Channel
South Ledge
uniquement leur localisation, et non leurs caractéristiques
North Channel
Ce croquis a été établi à fin dʼillustration.
Projection de Mercator (0°N)
SINGAPOUR
1 : 500 000
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
INDONÉSIE (Pulau Batam)
South Channel
Middle Rocks
Détroit de Singapour
CROQUIS TIRÉ DE L’ARRÊT DE 2008 FIGURANT
PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH
12
the newly discovered fact would be a decisive factor in the Court’s consideration
of the case. Malaysia submits that the new documents recently identified require
revision of the 2008 Judgment.
5. By this Application, the Government of Malaysia seeks revision of that part
of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh. Malaysia requests the Court to determine that this Application
satisfies
the requirements set out in Article 61 of the Statute of the Court and is
therefore admissible. Malaysia further requests the Court to make appropriate
arrangements for the substantive revision proceedings.
6. Malaysia emphasizes that it does not make this Revision Application lightly.
Revision proceedings are exceptional. It is only after careful consideration that the
Government of Malaysia has decided to submit this Application.
7. This Application is not an appeal against the 2008 Judgment. On the contrary,
it draws to the Court’s attention what has only recently become known to
Malaysia, namely, that even after the 1953 correspondence, and at a point at which
Singapore had become a self-governing
colonial territory, Singapore, at the highest
levels of its Government, did not have the view that it had sovereignty over
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. Singapore subsequently carried this appreciation
into its federation as part of Malaysia in 1963 and, it necessarily follows, that that
appreciation remained controlling on Singapore’s independence in 1965. It is
Malaysia’s contention, informed by a close reading of the Judgment of 2008 and
its accompanying opinions, that the Court would have been bound to reach a different
conclusion on the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh had it been aware of this new evidence.
II. The Judgment of 23 May 2008 as It concerns Sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
8. In the 2008 Judgment, the Court found that Malaysia, through its predecessor,
the Sultanate of Johor, held original title to the islands in the straits of Singapore,
including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, from at least the seventeenth century.
Although the Sultan of Johor gave his permission to the British to construct
and operate a lighthouse, the Horsburgh Lighthouse, on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh in 1844, the Court held that Johor had not ceded sovereignty to the British by
this arrangement but instead retained its original title to the island until at least
1952 1.
9. In turning to consider whether Johor’s sovereignty had been transferred to
Singapore or its predecessors, the Court explained that
“[a]ny passing of sovereignty might be by way of agreement between the two
States in question. Such an agreement might take the form of a treaty . . . The
agreement might instead be tacit and arise from the conduct of the Parties.
International law does not, in this matter, impose any particular form. Rather
it places its emphasis on the parties’ intentions.” 2
10. The Court explained that such a tacit agreement might arise in circumstances
where a State fails to respond to concrete manifestations of the display of
territorial sovereignty over the disputed area by the other State.
1 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 29‑72, paras. 37-191.
2 Ibid., p. 50, para. 120.
13
influence décisive. La Malaisie considère que les documents récemment mis au jour
exigent une revision de l’arrêt de 2008.
5. Par la présente demande, le Gouvernement malaisien sollicite la revision de la
partie de l’arrêt du 23 mai 2008 qui concerne la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh. La Malaisie prie la Cour de dire que la demande satisfait aux
conditions énoncées à l’article 61 de son Statut et qu’elle est donc recevable. Elle la
prie en outre de prendre les dispositions nécessaires pour procéder à la revision au
fond.
6. La Malaisie souligne qu’elle ne présente pas sa demande en revision à la
légère. Les procédures de revision revêtent un caractère exceptionnel. Ce n’est
qu’après mûre réflexion que le Gouvernement malaisien a décidé de soumettre sa
demande.
7. La présente demande ne constitue pas un recours contre l’arrêt de 2008. Bien
au contraire, elle vise à appeler l’attention de la Cour sur un élément qui n’a été
porté à la connaissance de la Malaisie que récemment, à savoir que, même après la
correspondance de 1953, alors qu’elle était devenue un territoire colonial autonome,
Singapour ne considérait pas, au plus haut niveau de son gouvernement,
qu’elle avait la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. Tel continuait à
être son point de vue au moment de rejoindre la Fédération de Malaisie en 1963, et
c’est en conséquence cette position qui prévalait encore lors de son accession à
l’indépendance en 1965. La Malaisie, se fondant sur une lecture attentive de l’arrêt
de 2008 et des opinions qui y sont jointes, soutient que la Cour serait nécessairement
parvenue à une conclusion différente sur la question de la souveraineté sur
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh si elle avait eu connaissance de ce nouvel élément.
II. L’arrêt du 23 mai 2008 en ce qu’il a trait à la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
8. Dans son arrêt de 2008, la Cour a conclu que la Malaisie détenait, par l’entremise
de son prédécesseur, le Sultanat de Johor, un titre originaire sur les îles situées
dans le détroit de Singapour, notamment Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, et ce,
depuis le XVIIe siècle au moins. Bien que le Sultanat de Johor eût autorisé les Britanniques,
en 1844, à construire et à exploiter un phare — le phare Horsburgh —
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, la Cour a conclu que le Johor n’avait pas cédé
la souveraineté au Royaume‑Uni par cet arrangement, mais avait au contraire
conservé son titre originaire sur l’île jusqu’en 1952 au moins 1.
9. Lorsqu’elle s’est penchée sur la question de savoir si la souveraineté que détenait
le Johor avait été transférée à Singapour ou à l’un de ses prédécesseurs, la
Cour a considéré que
« [u]n changement du titulaire de la souveraineté pourrait avoir résulté d’un
accord entre les deux Etats en question, accord qui pourrait avoir pris la
forme d’un traité, … ou avoir été tacite et découler du comportement des Parties.
Le droit international n’impose à cet égard aucune forme particulière. Il
met en revanche l’accent sur les intentions des parties. » 2
10. La Cour a considéré que l’on pouvait conclure à l’existence d’un accord
tacite lorsqu’un Etat ne répond pas aux manifestations concrètes par l’autre Etat
de l’exercice de sa souveraineté sur le territoire en litige.
1 Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 29‑72, par. 37-191.
2 Ibid., p. 50, par. 120.
14
“Such manifestations of the display of sovereignty may call for a response
if they are not to be opposable to the State in question. The absence of
reaction
may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence ‘is
equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the
other party may interpret as consent’. That is to say, silence may also speak,
but only if the conduct of the other State calls for a response.” 3
11. Moreover, the Court emphasized the significance of the stability of territorial
sovereignty when determining whether sovereignty had been transferred from
one party to another on the basis of their conduct.
“Critical for the Court’s assessment of the conduct of the Parties is the central
importance in international law and relations of State sovereignty over
territory and of the stability and certainty of that sovereignty. Because of that,
any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the
Parties, as set out above, must be manifested clearly and without any doubt
by that conduct and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be
involved, in the case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of
sovereignty over part of its territory.” 4
12. In deciding whether such a transfer of title had occurred, the Court attached
central importance to correspondence which passed between the Colonial
Secretary
of Singapore and the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953.
In particular, the Court considered it significant that the Acting Secretary of
Johor stated, in response to the Colonial Secretary’s request for clarification of the
status of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, that the Johor Government did not claim
ownership of the island 5. The Court considered that:
“this correspondence and its interpretation are of central importance for
determining the developing understanding of the two Parties about sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” 6.
13. Although the Court acknowledged that “ownership” and “sovereignty” are
different concepts in law, it concluded that:
“Johor’s reply showed that as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. In light of Johor’s reply, the
authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom
[Singapore’s predecessor in title] had sovereignty over the island.” 7
14. The Court noted, though attached limited significance to the fact, that after
this correspondence the Colonial Secretary of Singapore indicated to the Attorney-General
that the colonial authorities could claim the island, and another internal
memorandum was sent to inform the Master Attendant, Marine. But, as the Court
also stated, the Singapore authorities took no action in respect of Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh at this time.
3 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 50-51, para. 121, quoting the case concerning Delimitation of
the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130.
4 Ibid., p. 51, para. 122.
5 Ibid., p. 74, para. 196.
6 Ibid., p. 75, para. 203.
7 Ibid., p. 80, para. 223.
15
« De telles manifestations peuvent appeler une réponse, en l’absence de
laquelle elles deviennent opposables à l’Etat en question. L’absence de réaction
peut tout à fait valoir acquiescement. La notion d’acquiescement
« équiv[aut] à une reconnaissance tacite manifestée par un comportement unilatéral
que l’autre partie peut interpréter comme un consentement ». Autrement
dit, un silence peut aussi être éloquent, mais seulement si le comportement
de l’autre Etat appelle une réponse. » 3
11. La Cour a par ailleurs souligné l’importance du caractère stable de la souveraineté
territoriale lorsqu’elle cherche à déterminer si la souveraineté a été transférée
d’une partie à l’autre en se fondant sur le comportement de ces dernières.
« Un point déterminant pour l’appréciation que fera la Cour du comportement
des Parties tient à l’importance de premier plan que revêtent, en droit
international et dans les relations internationales, la souveraineté étatique sur
un territoire ainsi que le caractère stable et certain de cette souveraineté. De ce
fait, tout changement du titulaire de la souveraineté territoriale fondé sur le
comportement des Parties, tel qu’exposé ci-
dessus,
doit se manifester clairement
et de manière dépourvue d’ambiguïté au travers de ce comportement et
des faits pertinents. Cela vaut tout particulièrement si ce qui risque d’en
découler pour l’une des Parties est en fait l’abandon de sa souveraineté sur une
portion de son territoire. » 4
12. Pour déterminer si pareil transfert a eu lieu, la Cour a accordé une importance
primordiale à la correspondance échangée en 1953 entre le secrétaire colonial
de Singapour et le secrétaire d’Etat par intérim du Johor. En particulier, elle a
considéré qu’il était révélateur que ce dernier ait affirmé, en réponse à la demande
d’éclaircissements formulée par le secrétaire colonial au sujet du statut de
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, que le Gouvernement du Johor ne revendiquait
pas la propriété de l’île 5. La Cour a estimé que
« cette correspondance ainsi que la manière dont elle [a été] interprétée [étaient]
essentielles pour déterminer comment [avaient] évolué les vues des deux Parties
à propos de la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ». 6
13. Même si elle a reconnu que « propriété » et « souveraineté » étaient deux
concepts juridiques distincts, la Cour a conclu que
« la réponse du Johor montr[ait] que, en 1953, celui‑ci considérait que la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ne lui appartenait pas. Au vu de
cette réponse, les autorités à Singapour n’avaient aucune raison de douter que
le Royaume‑Uni détenait la souveraineté sur l’île. » 7
14. La Cour a relevé que, tout en n’y attachant qu’une importance mineure, le
secrétaire colonial de Singapour avait, après cet échange de correspondance, averti
l’Attorney‑General que les autorités coloniales pourraient revendiquer l’île, et
qu’un autre mémorandum interne avait été adressé au Master Attendant de la
marine pour le tenir informé. Pourtant, comme l’a également souligné la Cour, les
autorités singapouriennes n’ont pris à ce moment-là aucune mesure concernant
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
3 C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 50-51, par. 121, citant l’affaire de la Délimitation de la frontière
maritime dans la région du golfe du Maine (Canada/Etats-Unis d’Amérique), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 305, par. 130.
4 Ibid., p. 51, par. 122.
5 Ibid., p. 74, par. 196.
6 Ibid., p. 75, par. 203.
7 Ibid., p. 80, par. 223.
16
15. Having interpreted the 1953 correspondence, the Court proceeded to examine
the subsequent conduct of the Parties. This evidence concerned the investigation
of marine accidents, visits to the island, naval patrols, the display of symbols,
installation of military equipment, plans for reclamation works, petroleum prospecting
agreements, official publications, official maps and agreements to delimit
the territorial sea and continental shelf 8. Based on this evidence, the Court decided
that the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain, taken
together with the lack of response from Malaysia and its predecessors, “reflect a
convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding title to Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh”. The Court concluded that “by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore” 9.
III. Admissibility of the Application for Revision of the 2008 Judgment
16. Article 61 of the Statute of the Court provides:
“1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is
based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor,
which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and
also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was
not due to negligence.”
17. Accordingly, for an application for revision to be admissible, the following
requirements must be fulfilled 10 :
(a) the application must be based on the “discovery” of a “fact”, described in
Article 61 (2) as a “new fact”;
(b) the newly discovered fact must be “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor”;
(c) the newly discovered fact must have been “unknown” to both the Court and
the party claiming revision at the time when the judgment was given; and
(d) ignorance of the newly discovered fact must not be “due to negligence”.
18. Pursuant to Article 61 (4) and (5), an application for revision must be made
at latest “within six months of the discovery of the new fact” (Article 61 (4)) and
within ten years of the date of the Judgment (Article 61 (5)).
19. Malaysia acknowledges that all of these requirements must be satisfied for
an application for revision to be admissible 11. Malaysia considers that each of
these conditions has been satisfied in respect of the part of the Judgment of 23 May
2008 that concerns sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
20. In accordance with both Article 99 of the Rules of the Court and the
Court’s clarifications in previous applications for revision, this Application is
8 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 82-95, paras. 231-272.
9 Ibid., p. 96, para. 276.
10 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 12, para. 17, repeated in Application for
Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and
Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v.
Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, pp. 398‑399, para. 19.
11 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning
the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 399, para. 20.
17
15. Après avoir examiné la correspondance de 1953, la Cour s’est penchée sur le
comportement ultérieur des Parties. Les éléments de preuve à cet égard avaient trait
aux enquêtes sur les accidents maritimes, aux visites sur l’île, aux patrouilles navales,
aux actes symboliques, à l’installation de matériel militaire, aux projets de travaux
de récupération, aux accords d’exploration pétrolière, aux publications et cartes
officielles, ainsi qu’aux accords de délimitation de la mer territoriale et du plateau
continental 8. Sur la base de ces éléments, la Cour a considéré que le comportement
à titre de souverain de Singapour et de ses prédécesseurs, considéré conjointement
avec l’absence de réponse de la Malaisie ou de ses prédécesseurs, « témoign[ait]
d’une évolution convergente des positions de celles‑ci concernant le titre sur
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ». La Cour a conclu que, « en 1980, la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh était désormais détenue par Singapour » 9.
III. Recevabilité de la demande en revision de l’arrêt de 2008
16. L’article 61 du Statut de la Cour dispose ce qui suit :
« 1. La revision de l’arrêt ne peut être éventuellement demandée à la Cour
qu’en raison de la découverte d’un fait de nature à exercer une influence décisive
et qui, avant le prononcé de l’arrêt, était inconnu de la Cour et de la partie
qui demande la revision, sans qu’il y ait, de sa part, faute à l’ignorer. »
17. En conséquence, une demande en revision n’est recevable que si les conditions
suivantes sont remplies 10 :
a) la demande doit être fondée sur la « découverte » d’un « fait », décrit au paragraphe
2 de l’article 61 comme étant « nouveau » ;
b) le fait dont la découverte est invoquée doit être « de nature à exercer une
influence décisive » ;
c) ce fait doit, avant le prononcé de l’arrêt, avoir été « inconnu » de la Cour et de
la partie qui demande la revision ; et
d) il ne doit pas y avoir eu « faute » à ignorer le fait en question.
18. En application des paragraphes 4 et 5 de l’article 61, une demande en revision
doit être formée au plus tard « dans le délai de six mois après la découverte du fait
nouveau » (par. 4) et avant l’expiration d’un délai de dix ans à dater de l’arrêt (par. 5).
19. La Malaisie reconnaît que, pour qu’une demande en revision soit recevable
11, toutes ces conditions doivent être remplies, ce qu’elle considère être le cas
s’agissant de la partie de l’arrêt du 23 mai 2008 qui a trait à la souveraineté sur
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
20. Conformément à l’article 99 du Règlement de la Cour et aux éclaircissements
donnés par celle‑ci dans le cadre de précédentes demandes en revision, la
8 C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 82-95, par. 231‑272.
9 Ibid., p. 96, par. 276.
10 Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 juillet 1996 en l’affaire relative à l’Application de
la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie‑Herzégovine
c. Yougoslavie), exceptions préliminaires (Yougoslavie c. Bosnie‑Herzégovine), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 12, par. 17 ; répétée dans Demande en revision de l’arrêt du
11 septembre 1992 en l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime
(El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant)) (El Salvador c. Honduras), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 398-399, par. 19.
11 Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992 en l’affaire du Différend frontalier
terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant))
(El Salvador c. Honduras), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 399, par. 20.
18
limited
to the question of the admissibility of this Request, and so it addresses each
of the criteria described above. However, it will be necessary to address certain
substantive aspects of the 2008 Judgment given that this is required by some of
the admissibility requirements stipulated in Article 61.
A. Newly Discovered Facts
21. The meaning of the term “fact” in Article 61 of the Statute has not been fully
elaborated in the Court’s jurisprudence on Article 61, and there has been some
disagreement as to whether newly discovered documents are to be regarded as facts
within the meaning of Article 61. It appears from the Court’s readiness to assess
documents produced by El Salvador against the admissibility criteria of Article 61
in the Application for Revision of the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute
that the Court accepted a broad interpretation of “fact” for the purposes of the
Article.
22. Each of the documents described below can be characterized as a new fact
and satisfies the admissibility criterion of Article 61. Additionally, these newly discovered
documents may be taken as evidence of an implicit underlying fact,
namely, that Singapore did not consider that the 1953 correspondence effected a
transfer of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore.
23. During the period 4 August 2016-30 January 2017, research was undertaken
by Malaysia at the United Kingdom National Archives in London. This research
identified for the first time documents which demonstrated that Singapore officials
at the highest levels did not consider Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to fall within
Singapore’s sovereign territory in the years following the 1953 exchange of correspondence.
These documents were released to the public by the Government of the
United Kingdom only after the Court delivered its Judgment in 2008.
(i) 1958 correspondence concerning Singaporean territorial waters
24. The first newly discovered document was a confidential telegram sent in
1958 from the Governor of Singapore to the British Secretary of State for the
Colonies in response to a request for comments on a proposal to extend Singapore’s
territorial waters from 3 miles to 6 miles. (This proposal was intended to
prevent the emergence of a general international entitlement to 12 mile limits.) The
Governor of Singapore indicated that it was important to Singapore that the existing
3 mile limit be retained as access to the channels of approach to Singapore
would be inhibited if an entitlement to 6 mile limits became generally accepted
in international law. For this reason, he proposed that, in the event that
6 miles became the generally accepted limit, “special provision should be made for
an international high seas corridor 1 mile wide through the straits between
Singapore
and Malayan territory on the north and Indonesian territory on the
south” 12. He described the course of this corridor of international waters passing
only 1 mile from Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (where Horsburgh Lighthouse is
situated):
“This corridor should follow the normal shipping channel from west to east
which is approximately as follows. From a point 3 miles north of the Brothers
Light to a point 3 miles south of Sultan Shoal Light to a point 2 miles
12 Annex 1.
19
présente requête est uniquement consacrée à la question de la recevabilité, et chacun
des critères décrits ci‑dessus y sera donc traité. Il conviendra toutefois d’aborder
quelques aspects de fond de l’arrêt de 2008 pour vérifier que certaines des
conditions de recevabilité prévues à l’article 61 sont satisfaites.
A. Faits nouvellement découverts
21. Le sens du mot « fait » employé à l’article 61 du Statut n’a pas été précisé en
détail dans la jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour, et des divergences étaient apparues
quant à la question de savoir si certains documents nouvellement découverts
devaient être considérés comme des faits au sens de cet article. En se montrant
disposée, dans l’affaire de la Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992
en l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime, à examiner à
l’aune des critères de recevabilité établis à l’article 61 des documents produits
par El Salvador, la Cour semble avoir admis une interprétation large du mot
« fait » aux fins de l’application de cet article.
22. Chacun des documents décrits ci‑après peut être qualifié de fait nouveau et
satisfait aux critères de recevabilité établis à l’article 61. En outre, ces documents
nouvellement découverts peuvent être considérés comme des éléments attestant
un fait sous‑jacent implicite, à savoir que Singapour n’estimait pas que la correspondance
de 1953 lui avait transféré la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.
23. Du 4 août 2016 au 30 janvier 2017, la Malaisie a effectué des recherches dans
les archives nationales du Royaume‑Uni à Londres. Ces recherches lui ont permis
de découvrir des documents démontrant que certains des plus hauts représentants
de Singapour ne considéraient pas que Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh relevait du
territoire souverain singapourien dans les années qui ont suivi l’échange de correspondance
de 1953. Les documents en question n’ont été rendus accessibles au
public par le Gouvernement britannique qu’après le prononcé de l’arrêt de 2008.
i) Correspondance de 1958 relative aux eaux territoriales singapouriennes
24. Le premier document nouvellement découvert est un télégramme confidentiel
de 1958 adressé au secrétaire d’Etat aux colonies de la Grande‑Bretagne par le
gouverneur de Singapour en réponse à une demande de commentaires sur une proposition
tendant à porter la largeur des eaux territoriales singapouriennes de
3 milles à 6 milles. (Cette proposition visait à prévenir l’émergence d’un droit,
généralisé au plan international, à une limite de 12 milles.) Le gouverneur indiquait
qu’il était important pour Singapour de conserver la limite existante de
3 milles, car l’accès aux chenaux d’approche serait entravé si, à l’avenir, un droit à
une limite de 6 milles devenait la norme en droit international. D’où sa proposition,
pour le cas où pareille hypothèse se concrétiserait, de « veiller à ce que soit
ménagé un couloir international de haute mer de 1 mille de large dans les détroits
entre Singapour et le territoire de la Fédération de Malaya au nord et Singapour et
le territoire de l’Indonésie au sud » 12. Selon sa description, ce couloir d’eaux internationales
serait passé à seulement 1 mille de Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (où
se trouve le phare Horsburgh) :
« Ce couloir devrait suivre le chenal de navigation normal d’ouest en est qui
se présente approximativement comme suit. A partir d’un point situé à 3 milles
au nord du phare Brothers jusqu’à un point situé à 1 mille au nord du phare
12 Annexe 1.
20
south of Raffles Light to a point midway between the southernmost point
of St John’s Islands and Batu Berhanti Light to a point l mile north of
Horsburgh
Light.”
25. This document, which was not released by the Government of the United
Kingdom
until 2013, but Malaysia surmises, would have been known to Singapore
at the time of the proceedings before the Court, as the document originates from
Singapore, shows that, in 1958, the Governor of Singapore did not consider the
island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to be part of Singaporean territory. If he
had understood, or otherwise been advised, that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
was under Singaporean sovereignty, there would not have been a need for him to
advocate the provision of an international passage so near to the island, since Singapore
would have been able to claim rights over the territorial waters surrounding
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It is clear, therefore, that the Governor of Singapore
appreciated that the 1953 correspondence with Johor was not dispositive and
did not effect the transfer of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, as
it could reasonably be expected that he would otherwise have asserted Singapore’s
rights over the waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in order to
ensure free access to Singapore’s port, given the central importance of that facility
to the Singaporean economy.
26. It is interesting to compare this exchange with the examination that the
colonial authorities undertook five years earlier, in 1953, and which the Court
referred to in the Judgment 13. This comparison is particularly interesting in view
of the fact that in 1957, that is, after the first exchange but before the latter, Malaya
had gained independence. This newly discovered document attests that the 1953
correspondence concerning Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had no relevant
impact on Singapore’s understanding of its entitlement to maritime rights in the
area around the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. It follows from the 1958
document that the Governor of Singapore, the most senior official in the Singapore
administration, had no appreciation of any territorial waters claimed by Singapore
around the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. On the contrary, the 1958
document indicates that Malaysia and Singapore had a shared understanding at
that point that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rested with
Malaysia, not with Singapore.
(ii) Memorandum concerning the Labuan Haji maritime incident in 1958
27. The second document was discovered in a British archival file for 1958. It is
a message of 25 February 1958 addressed to “GS” (presumed to be the Governor
of Singapore) from a Mr. Wickens, and relates an incident concerning a Malaysian
vessel, the Labuan Haji, being followed by an Indonesian gunboat in waters “near
Horsburgh Light” (which is situated on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh).
Mr. Wickens’ message explains that the Royal Navy could not assist because the
vessel was “still inside Johore territorial waters”.
“MKPM vessel Labuan Haji left Singapore this morning for Petani. At
12:56 p.m. message received that she was being followed by Indonesian gunboat
near Horsburgh Light and she turned back to Singapore. The RMN
[Royal Malayan Navy] patrol launch left Telok Ayer to go to the rescue. Further
frantic messages received that the Indonesian gunboat was trying
13 I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 80-81, para. 125.
21
Horsburgh, en passant successivement par un point situé à 3 milles au sud du
phare Sultan Shoal, un point situé à 2 milles au sud du phare Raffles, et un
point situé à mi‑chemin entre le point le plus méridional de St John’s Island et
le phare Batu Berhanti. »
25. Ce document — que le Gouvernement britannique n’a rendu public
qu’en 2013 mais dont la Malaisie présume que Singapour avait connaissance à
l’époque de la procédure devant la Cour, puisqu’il en est l’auteur — montre que,
en 1958, le gouverneur de Singapour ne considérait pas que l’île de Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh faisait partie du territoire singapourien. S’il avait estimé, ou été
informé d’une autre manière, que Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh relevait de la
souveraineté singapourienne, point n’aurait été besoin pour lui de militer en faveur
de la création d’un passage international situé si près de l’île, car Singapour aurait
pu revendiquer des droits sur les eaux territoriales entourant celle‑ci. Il est
donc clair que le gouverneur de Singapour considérait que la correspondance
de 1953 avec le Johor n’était pas déterminante et n’avait pas emporté transfert
de la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ; l’on peut en effet raisonnablement
penser que, dans le cas contraire, il aurait fait valoir les droits de la
colonie sur les eaux entourant l’île afin de garantir le libre accès au port de
Singapour,
compte tenu de l’importance essentielle de ce dernier pour l’économie
singapourienne.
26. Il est instructif de rapprocher ce document de l’examen auquel les autorités
coloniales s’étaient livrées cinq ans auparavant, en 1953, examen dont la Cour fait
état dans son arrêt 13. Cette comparaison revêt un intérêt particulier compte tenu
du fait que, en 1957, c’est‑à‑dire après le premier échange mais avant le second, la
Malaisie avait accédé à l’indépendance. Le document nouvellement découvert
atteste que la correspondance de 1953 relative à Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
n’avait eu aucune incidence significative sur l’idée que se faisait Singapour de ses
droits sur les espaces maritimes entourant l’île. Il ressort du document de 1958 que
le gouverneur de Singapour, plus haut responsable de l’administration de ce territoire,
n’avait pas connaissance de l’existence, autour de l’île en question, d’eaux
territoriales auxquelles il aurait pu prétendre. Au contraire, ce document montre
que les deux parties concernées partageaient le point de vue selon lequel la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh appartenait à la Malaisie, et non à
Singapour.
ii) Mémorandum concernant l’incident maritime du Labuan Haji de 1958
27. Le deuxième document a été découvert dans un dossier des archives britanniques
de l’année 1958. Il s’agit d’un message du 25 février 1958 adressé à « GS »
(probablement le gouverneur de Singapour) par un certain M. Wickens au sujet
d’un incident au cours duquel un navire malaisien, le Labuan Haji, a été pris en
chasse par une canonnière indonésienne « près du phare Horsburgh » (situé sur
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh). Dans son message, M. Wickens précise que la
Royal Navy n’a pas pu porter secours au navire parce que celui‑ci « se trouvait
encore à l’intérieur des eaux territoriales du Johor ».
« Le Labuan Haji de la KPM a appareillé ce matin de Singapour pour
Petani. A 12 h 56, reçu message signalant qu’il avait été pris en chasse par une
canonnière indonésienne près du phare Horsburgh et qu’il faisait demi‑tour
vers Singapour. La vedette de la Marine royale malaisienne a appareillé de
Telok Ayer pour se porter à son secours. Reçu nouveaux messages affolés
13 C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 80-81, par. 125.
22
to block the Labuan Haji. Royal Navy were not in a position to act as ship still
inside Johore territorial waters.” 14
28. Press reports attached to the archival record report that a Royal Malayan
Navy launch responded to the appeal for help and attended the scene.
29. Attached to the same message is a later file note which reports an explanation
from Mr. Wickens that Royal Navy ships had been instructed that they “could
not intervene in Johore territorial waters unless specifically requested to do so by
the Federation Government (referring to the Government of the Federation of
Malaya)” 15.
30. This piece of evidence also demonstrates that the military authorities
responsible for Singapore’s defence at the time did not view the waters around
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as belonging to Singapore. Indeed, these authorities
considered these waters to belong to Johor, and had apparently issued instructions
to their ships to refrain from entering those waters without specific invitation.
Once again, Malaysia assumes that the document, and the evidence that it affords
of an appreciation of sovereignty, will have been known to Singapore at the time
as it was addressed to the Governor of Singapore. Once again, if there is any shared
understanding of sovereignty that emerges from this document it is that sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rested with Malaysia, in the name of
Johor.
31. That the British naval authorities viewed the waters adjacent to Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as belonging to Johor is especially noteworthy in view of
the fact, mentioned by the Court in the 2008 Judgment, that the Colonial Secretary
of Singapore had informed the Master Attendant, Marine in 1953 of his view that
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to lie in Johor waters indicates that no such a
claim to the island was ever made.
(iii) Annotated map of naval operations
32. The third document was discovered in a file prepared by the British Commander
of the Far East Fleet under the title “Naval Operations in the Malacca and
Singapore Straits 1964-1966”. This file contains a confidential publication distributed
by the Commander titled “Orders for Ships Patrolling in Defence of Western
Malaysian Seaboard”.
33. This confidential compilation of orders includes an order for “Restricted
and Prohibited Areas — Singapore Territorial Waters”, which indicates the areas
in which night curfew arrangements were to be enforced, and designates three
areas where night fishing was permitted. A map illustrating the various designated
curfew and fishing areas is attached to the order. Dated 25 March 1962, the map
also includes a clear line delimiting the Singaporean territorial waters. It shows the
limits of Singaporean territorial waters at a point south of Pulau Tekon Besar in
the Johor Strait; they do not extend to the vicinity of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.
34. Although the map is originally dated 25 March 1962, there are handwritten
annotations on the sheet dated February 1966. One annotation explains that “the
14 Annex 2, p. 43.
15 Ibid., p. 44.
23
signalant que la canonnière indonésienne essayait de bloquer le Labuan Haji.
La Royal Navy n’était pas en position d’intervenir parce que le navire se trouvait
encore à l’intérieur des eaux territoriales du Johor. » 14
28. Des articles de presse joints au document d’archives indiquent qu’une
vedette de la marine royale malaisienne a répondu à l’appel à l’aide et s’est rendue
sur place.
29. A ce même message est jointe une note d’accompagnement établie ultérieurement
et faisant état d’une observation de M. Wickens selon laquelle les navires
de la Royal Navy avaient eu pour instruction de ne pas « intervenir dans les eaux
territoriales du Johor sans y avoir été expressément invité[s] par le Gouvernement
de la Fédération [de Malaya] » 15.
30. Cet élément de preuve démontre également que les autorités militaires alors
chargées de la défense de Singapour ne considéraient pas les eaux entourant
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh comme appartenant à Singapour. Elles estimaient
en effet qu’elles relevaient du Johor, et avaient semble‑t‑il donné pour instruction
à leurs navires de ne pas y pénétrer sans y avoir été expressément invités. Là encore,
la Malaisie part du principe que Singapour devait avoir connaissance de ce document,
et avoir conscience de sa signification eu égard à la question de la souveraineté,
puisqu’il avait été adressé au gouverneur de la colonie. Une fois de plus, si
une quelconque communauté de vues à cet égard se dégage de ce document, c’est
que Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh relevait de la souveraineté de la Malaisie, au
nom du Johor.
31. Le fait que les autorités navales britanniques considéraient que les eaux
adjacentes à Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh relevaient du Johor mérite particulièrement
d’être souligné, puisque, comme la Cour l’a mentionné dans l’arrêt de 2008,
le secrétaire colonial de Singapour avait informé en 1953 le Master Attendant de la
Marine que, selon lui, cette île pouvait être revendiquée. Que la Royal Navy ait
considéré que Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh se trouvait dans les eaux du Johor
montre qu’une telle revendication n’a jamais été formulée.
iii) Carte annotée des opérations navales
32. Le troisième document a été découvert dans un dossier élaboré par le commandant
britannique de la flotte d’Extrême‑Orient et intitulé « Opérations navales
dans les détroits de Malacca et de Singapour — 1964‑1966 ». Ce dossier contient
une publication confidentielle diffusée par le commandant de la flotte et portant le
titre « Instructions à l’intention des navires effectuant des patrouilles de défense du
littoral de la Malaisie occidentale ».
33. Parmi ce recueil d’instructions confidentielles en figure une qui se rapporte à
des « zones d’accès restreint ou interdit dans les eaux territoriales singapouriennes
», indiquant celles dans lesquelles il convenait de faire appliquer certaines
dispositions en matière de couvre-feu nocturne et en désignant trois où la pêche de
nuit était autorisée. Une carte illustrant ces différentes zones de couvre‑feu et de
pêche est jointe à l’instruction. Datée du 25 mars 1962, elle présente également une
délimitation claire des eaux territoriales singapouriennes, dont les limites passent
par un point situé au sud de Pulau Tekon Besar, dans le détroit de Johor, sans
atteindre les environs de Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
34. Bien que la carte soit initialement datée du 25 mars 1962, elle comporte des
annotations manuscrites de février 1966. L’une d’elles précise que le « dispositif de
14 Annexe 2, marquée « 43 ».
15 Ibid., marquée « 44 ».
24
night curfew arrangements are reviewed each month by Singapore authorities and
re-imposed
as necessary”. It goes on to remark that there are no changes from the
arrangements described on the map as of February 1966.
35. The discovery of this map with its particular handwritten annotations provides
a valuable new basis for assessing the Singaporean authorities’ understanding
of their territorial entitlements, since the notes describe the operation and outcome
of a regular process in which the Singapore authorities reviewed and
reaffirmed the strict regulation of their maritime spaces every month. Despite the
regularity and frequency of this review, the authorities never extended its coverage
to include Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
36. It is not known precisely when this map was released to the public, and the
UK National Archives was unable to supply a specific date when enquiries were
made.
B. New Fact “of such a Nature as to Be a Decisive Factor”
37. For an application for revision to be admissible, the newly discovered fact
must be “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor”. The test of decisiveness has
proved to be significant in some of the Court’s previous judgments concerning
applications for revision, and the Court has clarified that a newly discovered fact
will be a decisive factor if the Court might have changed its decision in some way
as a result. In the Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), the Court stated:
“[W]hat is required for the admissibility of an application for revision is not
that the new fact relied on might, had it been known, have made it possible for
the Court to be more specific in its decision; it must have been a ‘fact of such
a nature as to be a decisive factor’. So far from constituting such a fact, the
details [of the alleged new fact] . . . would not have changed the decision of the
Court.” 16
38. A similar interpretation appears to have been applied in the Application for
Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land,
Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua
intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras) when the Chamber determined that one
of the alleged new facts “does not overturn the conclusions arrived at by the
Chamber” 17.
39. In order to determine whether a newly discovered fact is capable of being
characterized as a decisive factor, it is necessary to recall the considerations of legal
principle on which the Court relied when ruling on the sovereignty of Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. According to the Court, sovereignty might pass if the
conduct of the parties reveals the emergence of an informal or tacit agreement
between the two States in question, including situations where an existing sovereign’s
failure to respond to acts à titre de souverain by the other State indicates that
16 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the
Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya), I.C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 213‑214, para. 39.
17 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning
the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras), I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 410, para. 53.
25
couvre‑feu nocturne … est revu tous les mois par les autorités singapouriennes et
au besoin reconduit », puis que, à la date de février 1966, aucun changement
n’avait été apporté aux arrangements en vigueur au moment de l’établissement de
la carte.
35. La découverte de la carte portant de telles annotations manuscrites jette une
lumière toute particulière sur l’idée que se faisaient les autorités singapouriennes
de l’étendue de leurs droits territoriaux ; ces notes décrivent en effet un processus
régulier dans le cadre duquel ces autorités réexaminaient et reconduisaient chaque
mois la stricte réglementation de leurs espaces maritimes. En dépit de la régularité
et de la fréquence de ces réexamens, elles n’ont jamais étendu la zone couverte à
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.
36. La date exacte à laquelle cette carte a été rendue publique n’est pas connue,
et les archives nationales du Royaume‑Uni n’ont pas été en mesure de la préciser
lorsque la demande leur en a été faite.
B. Fait nouveau « de nature à exercer une influence décisive »
37. Pour qu’une demande en revision soit recevable, le fait nouvellement découvert
doit être « de nature à exercer une influence décisive ». Le critère de l’influence
décisive s’est révélé important dans certains des arrêts rendus par la Cour sur des
demandes en revision qui lui avaient été soumises — elle a précisé qu’un fait nouvellement
découvert exerçait une influence décisive si sa décision aurait pu en être
modifiée de quelque manière que ce soit. Dans l’affaire de la Demande en revision
et en interprétation de l’arrêt du 24 février 1982 en l’affaire du Plateau continental
(Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne) (Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne), la Cour
a ainsi affirmé :
« pour qu’une requête en revision soit recevable, il ne suffit pas que le fait nouveau
invoqué eût permis à la Cour, si elle en avait eu connaissance, de se
montrer plus spécifique dans sa décision ; il faut encore que ce fait ait été « de
nature à exercer une influence décisive ». Loin de constituer un tel fait, les
précisions quant [au nouveau fait allégué] n’auraient pas changé la décision de
la Cour. » 16
38. Une interprétation similaire semble avoir prévalu dans l’affaire de la
Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992 en l’affaire du Différend frontalier
terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant))
(El Salvador c. Honduras), dans laquelle la Chambre a conclu que l’un des
nouveaux faits allégués « n’infirm[ait] pas les conclusions auxquelles la Chambre
était parvenue » 17.
39. Pour déterminer si le fait nouvellement découvert peut être considéré comme
entrant dans la catégorie des faits de nature à exercer une influence décisive, il est
nécessaire de rappeler les motifs d’ordre juridique sur lesquels la Cour s’est fondée
lorsqu’elle a tranché l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge. La Cour a considéré qu’il pouvait
y avoir transfert de souveraineté si le comportement des parties révélait l’émergence
d’un accord informel ou tacite entre les deux Etats en cause, y compris dans
16 Demande en revision et en interprétation de l’arrêt du 24 février 1982 en l’affaire du
Plateau continental (Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne) (Tunisie c. Jamahiriya arabe
libyenne), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1985, p. 213-214, par. 39.
17 Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992 en l’affaire du Différend frontalier
terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras ; Nicaragua (intervenant))
(El Salvador c. Honduras), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 410, par. 53.
26
sovereign’s consent, in acquiescent form, to the transfer if title 18. In the Judgment,
the Court ruled that sovereignty over the island passed because the conduct of the
Parties “reflect[ed] a convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding
title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh” 19. In ascertaining the emergence of this
convergence of the Parties’ positions, the Court attached “major significance” to
the statement of the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor during the 1953 correspondence
that Johor did not claim ownership of the island 20. The Court also paid
close attention to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain
taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors, including their
failure to respond 21.
40. The newly discovered documents individually and together demonstrate
that Singapore, at the very highest levels, knew that that 1953 correspondence did
not effect a transfer of sovereignty, and that in the years after that exchange Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore’s sovereign territory.
This fact is of great importance as it cuts deeply against the central thesis of the
Court’s Judgment that a “shared understanding” began to develop gradually after
the exchange of correspondence in 1953. This theory — that that the positions of
the two parties gradually converged on a shared understanding that Johor’s sovereignty
passed over to Singapore — provided the lens through which the Court
evaluated the Parties’ conduct in the period between 1953 and 1980. As such, the
recent discovery that Singapore knew that it had not acquired title to Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh as a result of the 1953 correspondence is a decisive factor in
this case.
41. Not only does this newly discovered fact upset the timeline and disturb the
trajectory of the “convergence” of the two Parties’ positions on the matter, it also
fractures the lens through which the Court viewed all of the subsequent conduct of
the Parties. With such deep-reaching
effects on the Court’s understanding of the
issues that informed its Judgment in 2008, this newly discovered fact would, in
Malaysia’s contention, if considered anew, inevitably lead to a different conclusion
on the question of whether Johor’s title to the island had passed to Singapore. This
is all the more the case as the Court’s appreciation that sovereignty passed in consequence
of the emergence of an informal agreement between the Parties was not
the subject of submission by the Parties or enquiry by the Court in the original
proceedings.
42. It is also worth noting the additional significance of the handwritten annotations
on the map of restricted areas, since that evidence shows that Singapore’s
appreciation that it had not acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh continued through to 1966. This is significant in two respects. First, the
annotations inform us that the map of restricted areas was reviewed and reaffirmed
every month, and the consistent reaffirmation of a map which excludes Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from Singapore’s territorial waters shows that there was
no evolution or gradual development in the Singaporean officials’ understanding
of their sovereign space; rather, their position was static and unchanging until
18 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pp. 50‑51, paras. 120-122, and
pp. 95‑96, paras. 273-276.
19 Ibid., p. 96, para. 276.
20 Ibid., para. 275.
21 Ibid., para. 276.
27
des situations où l’absence de réaction de la part de l’Etat détenant la souveraineté
face à des actes accomplis à titre de souverain par l’autre Etat indiquait son consentement,
sous forme d’acquiescement, au transfert du titre 18. Dans son arrêt, la
Cour a conclu au transfert de la souveraineté sur l’île, car le comportement des
parties « témoign[ait] d’une évolution convergente des positions de celles‑ci concernant
le titre sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh » 19. Pour vérifier l’apparition de
cette convergence entre les positions des parties, la Cour a accordé une « importance
capitale » à la déclaration faite par le secrétaire d’Etat par intérim de l’Etat
du Johor dans le cadre de la correspondance de 1953, déclaration selon laquelle le
Johor ne revendiquait pas la propriété de l’île 20. La Cour a également porté
beaucoup
d’attention au comportement à titre de souverain de Singapour et de ses
prédécesseurs, considéré conjointement avec celui de la Malaisie et de ses prédécesseurs,
et notamment avec le fait que ceux‑ci soient demeurés sans réaction 21.
40. Pris ensemble ou séparément, les documents nouvellement découverts
démontrent que Singapour savait, aux plus hauts niveaux, que la correspondance
de 1953 n’avait emporté aucun transfert de souveraineté et que, dans les années
ayant suivi cet échange, Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ne faisait pas partie de son
territoire souverain. Ce fait revêt une importance considérable car il va nettement à
l’encontre de la prémisse sur laquelle repose l’arrêt de la Cour, à savoir qu’une
« communauté de vues » aurait commencé à se constituer après l’échange de correspondance
de 1953. C’est en effet au travers de ce prisme — à savoir que les positions
des deux parties auraient convergé progressivement en une communauté de vues
selon laquelle la souveraineté sur le Johor avait été transférée à Singapour — que la
Cour a apprécié le comportement des parties au cours de la période allant de 1953
à 1980. Comme telle, la découverte récente du fait que Singapour savait qu’elle
n’avait pas acquis de titre sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh par suite de la correspondance
de 1953 est de nature à exercer une influence décisive en l’espèce.
41. Non seulement ce fait nouvellement découvert bouleverse la chronologie et
altère la portée de la « convergence » des positions des deux Parties sur la question,
mais il brise également le prisme au travers duquel la Cour a examiné l’ensemble
du comportement ultérieur des Parties. Avec des effets aussi considérables sur les
éléments intervenus dans la rédaction par la Cour de son arrêt de 2008, ce fait
nouveau, en cas de réexamen, conduirait inévitablement, selon la Malaisie, à une
conclusion différente concernant l’existence d’un transfert à Singapour du titre du
Johor sur l’île. Cela est d’autant plus vrai que, au cours de la procédure initiale, la
conclusion de la Cour selon laquelle la souveraineté avait été transférée par suite
d’un accord informel s’étant peu à peu fait jour entre les Parties ne découlait pas
des demandes de celles‑ci ni de renseignements qu’elle aurait recherchés.
42. Les annotations manuscrites portées sur la carte des zones d’accès restreint
revêtent une importance supplémentaire puisqu’elles sont la preuve que, jusqu’en
1966, Singapour considérait qu’elle n’avait pas acquis la souveraineté sur
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. Deux points sont essentiels à cet égard. Premièrement,
les annotations nous indiquent que la carte des zones d’accès restreint était
revue et le dispositif reconduit tous les mois ; la confirmation systématique d’une
carte qui exclut Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh des eaux territoriales de Singapour
montre que la façon dont les autorités singapouriennes concevaient l’espace
souverain n’avait pas évolué, pas plus qu’elle n’était le fait d’un point de vue qui se
18 Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 50‑51, par. 120‑122, et p. 95‑96,
par. 273‑276.
19 Ibid., p. 96, par. 276.
20 Ibid., par. 275.
21 Ibid., par. 276.
28
1966. Second, the date of the annotation is significant in the light of the constitutional
changes which Singapore underwent in the 1960s. Singapore joined the State
of Malaysia in 1963 — one year after the map of restricted areas was first drawn —
and it ceased to be a member of Malaysia in 1965 — one year before the annotations
were added to the map. This means that Singapore did not consider Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to fall under Singaporean sovereignty either at the time
when it became a part of Malaysia, or at the time when it left that entity and
became a State in its own right.
C. New Fact Unknown to the Court and to the Party Claiming
Revision at the Time of the Judgment
43. As the Court made clear in its Judgment in the Application for Revision of
the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina
v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina),
the newly discovered fact must have existed at the time the Judgment was
given but have been unknown to both the Court and the party seeking revision.
44. The fact that the British colonial and the Singaporean authorities at the
highest level had acted in conformity with their understanding that Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh did not fall under Singapore’s sovereignty after 1953 was
unknown both to the Court and to Malaysia at the time the Judgment was delivered
in 2008.
45. This fact was not pleaded by either Party during the original proceedings
and was only discovered on review of the archival files of the British colonial
administration after they were made available to the public by the UK National
Archives after Judgment was rendered in 2008.
D. Ignorance of New Fact not due to Negligence
46. Whether the late discovery of new facts is attributable to negligence on the
part of the State requesting revision is a question that the Court has considered in
two of the revision applications that it has heard to date. When determining
whether a party has been negligent in failing to produce evidence of the newly
alleged facts during the original proceedings the Court appears to employ an
objective test based on the reasonableness of the conduct of the applicant State. In
the Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982
in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
(Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), the Court held that there was no reason why
Tunisia could not seek out by itself the information concerning the fact that was
newly alleged in the revision application by employing lawful and proper means.
In determining whether Tunisia had been negligent in failing to obtain certain
information (concerning concessions granted by Libya), the Court asked “whether
the circumstances were such that means were available to Tunisia to ascertain the
details of the concessions from other sources; and indeed whether it was in Tunisia’s
own interests to do so” 22.
22 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982
in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 205, para. 23.
29
serait progressivement fait jour ; au contraire, leur position est demeurée inchangée
jusqu’en 1966. Deuxièmement, à la lumière des changements d’ordre constitutionnel
que Singapour a connus dans les années 1960, la date des annotations est primordiale.
Singapour a rejoint l’Etat de Malaisie en 1963, soit un an après que la
carte des zones d’accès restreint eut été établie pour la première fois, et a cessé d’en
faire partie en 1965, soit un an avant que les annotations aient été ajoutées à la
carte. Cela signifie que Singapour ne considérait pas Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
comme relevant de sa souveraineté ni au moment où elle est devenue une partie de
la Malaisie ni à celui où elle a quitté celle‑ci pour devenir un Etat indépendant.
C. Fait nouveau inconnu, au moment du prononcé de l’arrêt, de la Cour
et de la partie qui en demande la revision
43. Comme la Cour l’a précisé dans l’arrêt qu’elle a rendu en l’affaire de la
Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 11 juillet 1996 en l’affaire relative à l’Application
de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide
(Bosnie‑Herzégovine
c. Yougoslavie), exceptions préliminaires (Yougoslavie
c. Bosnie‑Herzégovine),
le fait nouveau doit avoir existé au moment du prononcé
de l’arrêt mais doit avoir été inconnu d’elle‑même et de la partie qui demande la
revision.
44. Le fait que les autorités coloniales britanniques et les autorités singapouriennes
aient, au plus haut niveau, agi suivant l’idée que Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh ne relevait pas de la souveraineté de Singapour après 1953 était inconnu
de la Cour et de la Malaisie lors du prononcé de l’arrêt en 2008.
45. Ce fait n’a été invoqué par aucune des Parties au cours de la procédure initiale
et n’a été découvert qu’à l’examen des dossiers d’archives de l’administration
coloniale britannique après que ceux‑ci eurent été rendus publics par les archives
nationales du Royaume‑Uni, postérieurement à l’arrêt de 2008.
D. Ignorance du fait nouveau non due à une faute
46. La question de savoir si la découverte tardive de faits nouveaux est attribuable
à une faute de la part de l’Etat qui demande la revision d’un arrêt est une
question que la Cour a examinée dans le cadre de deux des demandes en revision
dont elle a eu à connaître jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Pour déterminer s’il y a eu faute de
la part d’une partie à manquer de produire, au cours de la procédure initiale, des
éléments de preuve concernant les faits nouvellement allégués, la Cour semble
recourir à un critère objectif fondé sur le caractère raisonnable du comportement
de l’Etat demandeur. Dans l’affaire de la Demande en revision et en interprétation
de l’arrêt du 24 février 1982 en l’affaire du Plateau continental (Tunisie/Jamahiriya
arabe libyenne) (Tunisie c. Jamahiriya arabe libyenne), la Cour a jugé qu’il n’y
avait aucune raison pour que la Tunisie n’ait pas pu rechercher par elle‑même les
informations concernant le fait allégué comme nouveau dans la demande en revision
en employant des moyens licites et appropriés. Pour déterminer s’il y avait eu,
de la part de la Tunisie, faute à manquer de se procurer certaines informations
(concernant les concessions accordées par la Libye), la Cour s’est demandé « si, en
l’occurrence, la Tunisie avait les moyens d’obtenir d’autres sources les coordonnées
exactes de la concession ; et si au demeurant il était de son intérêt de le faire » 22.
22 Demande en revision et en interprétation de l’arrêt du 24 février 1982 en l’affaire du
Plateau continental (Tunisie c. Jamahiriya arabe libyenne) (Tunisie c. Jamahiriya arabe
libyenne), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1985, p. 205, par. 23.
30
47. The newly discovered documents which have established the “fact”
advanced in the present Application were not available to Malaysia before the
Judgment was given. They are confidential official documents which were inaccessible
to the public until their release by the UK National Archives.
48. It is also worth noting that the negligence standard in this case should take
into account the fact that the issue of the Parties’ own understanding of the situation
concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was not pleaded
during the original proceedings, and it would be difficult to expect litigants to be
characterized as negligent for not discovering information relevant to a point
which was not anticipated in the proceedings.
49. Since the documents described above were housed in the UK National
Archives and were only released to the public after the Judgment, their discovery
after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Court is not attributable to any
negligence on the part of the Government of Malaysia, and so presents no obstacle
to the admissibility of this application for revision.
E. Time-Limits
50. Article 61 imposes two conditions as to the timing of an application for revision:
the application must be made within six months of the discovery of the new
fact and no later than ten years after the Judgment is delivered.
51. Malaysia’s application complies with both of these requirements. The application
complies with Article 61 (4), as it is being made within six months of the
discovery of the new fact, since all of the documents that establish this fact and
which are referred to in this application were obtained on or after 4 August 2016.
52. This application also complies with the time-limit specified in Article 61(5),
as it is being submitted before the lapse of ten years from the Judgment date of
23 May 2008.
IV. Conclusion
53. Newly available documents establish the fact that officials at the highest
levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore’s sovereign territory
in the years following the correspondence between the British colonial authorities
and Johor in 1953. This was not a fact known to Malaysia or to the Court at
the time of the 2008 Judgment.
54. This new fact suggests that the 1953 correspondence between the United
Kingdom and Johor neither created nor advanced the formation of a shared
understanding between the Parties concerning the passing of sovereignty over
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from Johor to Singapore. They show that there
was no tacit agreement between the Parties regarding the transfer of sovereignty
over the island, especially when, as the Court declared,
“any passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduct of the
Parties . . . must be manifested clearly and without any doubt by that conduct
and the relevant facts. That is especially so if what may be involved, in the
case of one of the Parties, is in effect the abandonment of sovereignty over
part of its territory.” 23
23 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 51, para. 122.
31
47. Les documents nouvellement découverts établissant le « fait » exposé dans la
présente demande n’étaient pas accessibles à la Malaisie avant le prononcé de l’arrêt.
Il s’agit en effet de documents officiels confidentiels auxquels le public n’avait pas
accès avant que les archives nationales du Royaume‑Uni ne les aient déclassifiés.
48. Il convient également de noter que, en l’espèce, l’application du critère de la
faute devrait tenir compte du fait que l’idée que les Parties elles‑mêmes se faisaient
de la situation concernant la souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh n’a
pas été traitée par elles lors de la procédure initiale ; il serait donc difficile d’envisager
de qualifier les Parties de fautives au motif qu’elles n’auraient pas découvert des
informations concernant un point qui n’a pas été soulevé lors de la procédure.
49. Les documents décrits ci‑dessus ayant été conservés aux archives nationales
du Royaume‑Uni et n’ayant été rendus publics qu’après l’arrêt, leur découverte
après la clôture de la procédure devant la Cour n’est pas imputable à une faute de
la part du Gouvernement de la Malaisie et ne fait donc pas obstacle à la recevabilité
de la présente demande en revision.
E. Délais
50. L’article 61 pose deux conditions de temps concernant le dépôt d’une
demande en revision : la demande doit être formée dans les six mois de la découverte
du fait nouveau et avant l’expiration d’un délai de dix ans à dater du prononcé
de l’arrêt.
51. La demande de la Malaisie satisfait à ces deux conditions. Elle est conforme
au paragraphe 4 de l’article 61 puisqu’elle a été formée dans les six mois de la
découverte du fait nouveau ; en effet, tous les documents établissant ce fait mentionnés
dans la présente demande ont été obtenus le 4 août 2016 ou après.
52. La présente demande est également conforme au délai précisé au paragraphe
5 de l’article 61, puisqu’elle est soumise avant l’expiration du délai de
dix ans courant à compter du 23 mai 2008, date du prononcé de l’arrêt.
IV. Observation finale
53. Les documents rendus publics récemment établissent le fait que les plus
hauts responsables de la colonie britannique et de l’administration singapourienne
considéraient que Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ne faisait pas partie du territoire
souverain de Singapour dans les années ayant suivi l’échange de correspondance
de 1953 entre les autorités coloniales britanniques et le Johor. Ce fait était inconnu
de la Malaisie et de la Cour lors du prononcé de l’arrêt.
54. Ce fait nouveau porte à croire que la correspondance de 1953 entre le
Royaume‑Uni et le Johor n’a jamais permis la constitution ou le renforcement
d’une communauté de vues entre les Parties concernant le transfert de la souveraineté
sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh entre le Johor et Singapour. Il montre
qu’il n’existait pas d’accord tacite entre les Parties concernant le transfert de la
souveraineté sur l’île, et ce, notamment, car, comme la Cour l’a déclaré :
« tout changement du titulaire de la souveraineté territoriale fondé sur le comportement
des Parties … doit se manifester clairement et de manière dépourvue
d’ambiguïté au travers de ce comportement et des faits pertinents. Cela
vaut tout particulièrement si ce qui risque d’en découler pour l’une des Parties
est en fait l’abandon de sa souveraineté sur une portion de son territoire. » 23
23 Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 51, par. 122.
32
V. Appointment of a Judge Ad Hoc
55. In accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court, Malaysia appoints
Professor John Dugard as Judge ad hoc for purposes of these proceedings, Professor
Dugard having acted as Judge ad hoc appointed by Malaysia in the original
proceedings leading to the 2008 Judgment.
VI. Submissions
56. For the reasons described above, Malaysia respectfully requests the Court
to adjudge and declare:
—— that there exists a new fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor within the
meaning of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court;
—— that this Application for revision of the Judgment is admissible; and
—— that the Court should, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of the Court,
fix a time to proceed with consideration of the application for revision.
I have the honour to submit to the Court the Application for Revision of the
Judgment of 23 May 2008, in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) as well as
the annexes attached hereto.
The Application is filed in accordance and within the time-limit set out in Article
61 of the Statute. In accordance with the respective Rules and Practice of the
Court,1 submit a duly signed copy of the Application.
I am pleased to certify that the copies of the annexed documents are true copies
of the originals.
2 February 2017.
(Signed) Dato’ Ahmad Nazri Yusof,
Ambassador of Malaysia
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Co-Agent of Malaysia.
33
V. Désignation d’un juge ad hoc
55. Conformément à l’article 31 du Statut de la Cour, la Malaisie désigne
M. John Dugard pour siéger en qualité de juge ad hoc aux fins de la présente instance,
comme elle l’avait déjà fait dans la procédure initiale qui a abouti à l’arrêt
de 2008.
VI. Conclusions
56. Pour les raisons exposées ci‑dessus, la Malaisie prie respectueusement la
Cour de dire et juger :
—— qu’il existe un fait nouveau de nature à exercer une influence décisive au sens de
l’article 61 du Statut de la Cour ;
—— que la présente demande en revision de l’arrêt est recevable ; et
—— qu’il lui incombe, conformément à l’article 99 de son Règlement, de fixer un
calendrier en vue de l’examen de la demande en revision.
J’ai l’honneur de soumettre à la Cour la demande en revision de l’arrêt du
23 mai 2008 en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour), ainsi que les annexes qui y
sont jointes.
La demande est formée conformément aux conditions et aux délais énoncés à
l’article 61 du Statut de la Cour. En conformité avec le Règlement et la pratique de
la Cour, j’ai l’honneur de soumettre une copie dûment signée de la demande.
J’ai l’honneur de certifier que les documents annexés sont des copies conformes
des originaux.
Le 2 février 2017.
Le coagent de la Malaisie,
ambassadeur de la Malaisie
auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
(Signé) S. Exc. M. Dato’ Ahmad Nazri Yusof.
34
24
LIST OF ANNEXES*
Annex 1. Colony of Singapore Confidential Telegram No. 52 from the Governor
of Singapore to the Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 7 February
1958 regarding Territorial Waters.
Annex 2. Memorandum reporting Labuan Haji incident, 25 February 1958 and
accompanying file note.
Annex 3. Map of Restricted and Prohibited Areas — Singapore Territorial
Waters, dated 25 March 1962.
* Annexes not reproduced in print version, but available in electronic version on the
Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org, under “cases”).
35
24
LISTE DES ANNEXES*
Annexe 1. Télégramme confidentiel no 52 de la colonie de Singapour concernant
les eaux territoriales en date du 7 février 1958 et adressé au secrétaire
d’Etat aux colonies par le gouverneur de Singapour.
Annexe 2. Mémorandum sur l’incident du Labuan Haji du 25 février 1958 et note
d’accompagnement correspondante.
Annexe 3. Carte des zones d’accès restreint ou interdit — Eaux territoriales de
Singapour, en date du 25 mars 1962.
* Annexes non reproduites en version papier, mais disponibles en version électronique
sur le site Internet de la Cour (http://www.icj-cij.org, onglet « affaires »).
IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE – PRINTED IN FRANCE

ICJ document subtitle

Application for revision of the Judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 23 May 2008 in the case concerning <i>Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Application for Revision

Links